We've asked a bunch of other questions about elections yet I've never heard an all out discussion on what presidential election is the most racist election in history. Depending on how liberal you use the term there are probably a dozen or so that could actually be qualified as "racist". Here are a few that I think are top contenders:

(note: These are IN CONTEXT. Otherwise some of the more modern "racist" elections wouldn't even come close)

Election of 1824: Andrew Jackson begins campaigning on "civilizing" the Injuns.Election of 1844: MANIFEST DESTINY! MANIFEST DESTINY! MIGHTY WHITEY! MIGHTY WHITEY!Election of 1856: The Know Nothing Party. Enough said.Election of 1860: The Election over Slavery.Election of 1868: The first Reconstruction Era Election. Nice things were not said......Election of 1876: The South is "Redeemed".Election of 1920: While James Cox is busy visiting with nice young ladies Harding is busy eating watermelons with porch monkeys. Or something to that effect.Election of 1928: The First Republican Southern Strategy: kick the blacks out to prevent a Hibernian papist from becoming President. This would've been the first election in which the Republicans were the Mo'Racist! party if it weren't for some Mississippi Good Ole Yella Doggie Boy spreading rumors that Hoover danced with black girls.Election of 1948: Time to clean the swimming pool Strom.Election of 1964: If Barry Goldwater is elected President the Ku Klux Klan will start holding their own Olympics!Election of 1968: A journalist compared attending the 1968 American Independent Party Convention to a 1930's Berlin...............yeah. Pretty heavy man.Election of 2008: Beware the evil Kenyan born Muslim Atheist Marxist anti-whitey!

Honorable Mentions:

Election of 1800: The bitchfest over who was better: the French or the British?Election of 1884: Proved that Republicans could *gasp* be racist as well.Election of 1888: 1884 Part II.Hell, any Election between 1860 and 1952: If we're going to cover all bases.Election of 1900: Killing Browns is cool again thanks to William McKinley.Election of 1960: I kind of feel obligated to include this one. Personally, from what I've read over American society in 1960 not many people (besides a few staunch protestants) gave that much of a sh*t over Kennedy's Catholicism. The fact that he was a tall Irishman was considered less "OMG!!!! HE'S STEALING OUR BOOZE!!!!" and more "OMG!!!! ME SO HONY!" by 1960.Election of 1972: Debatable. Many say that this is the election in which Nixon solidified his support amongst Southern Whites by campaigning on "moral order" or what not. So like 1960 I included this more out of obligation than that I think it's racist.Election of 1980: Reagan's Philadelphia, Mississippi speech over state's rights left an ugly taste in quite a few people's mouths. Probably nowhere as near as racist as 1968, but still dude what the hell?Election of 1988: Two words: Willie HortonElection of 1992: Debatable. There were a few debate moments when I felt like George HW Bush put his foot in his mouth and turned it sideways. I might be amplifying the perception too much but what I hear from a few older black people I know Bush came across as not caring about them (kind of like his son Dubya). This is probably the least racist Honorable Mention.

WTF!! 1900?! William McKinley killing browns? You're a smart guy; what kind of crack pipe are you smoking! We helped browns get their independence from white oppressors; if anything, we began affirmative action that year!

WTF!! 1900?! William McKinley killing browns? You're a smart guy; what kind of crack pipe are you smoking! We helped browns get their independence from white oppressors; if anything, we began affirmative action that year!

This is where views are supposed to respectfully diverge.However, I see that they haven't and that you are viewing those with different views than you as being on the crackpipe.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were. To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

If McKinley government so cared about the Philippines, they would've granted them independence instead of viciously putting down a rebellion.

WTF!! 1900?! William McKinley killing browns? You're a smart guy; what kind of crack pipe are you smoking! We helped browns get their independence from white oppressors; if anything, we began affirmative action that year!

This is where views are supposed to respectfully diverge.However, I see that they haven't and that you are viewing those with different views than you as being on the crackpipe.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were. To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

If McKinley government so cared about the Philippines, they would've granted them independence instead of viciously putting down a rebellion.

So much for getting rid of evil "white oppressors".

^^^

It took well over three decades to grant the Philippines an autonomy, and over four to return their independence.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were. To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

One may also argue that the U.S. saved the Filipino from being ruled by Imperial Germany or Japan, which arguably may have been worse in the long-run.

As for the most racist election 1864 definitely comes to mind if one wishes to use the modern idea of "racism." Shortly before Christmas, 1863, a 72-page pamphlet appeared for sale on newsstands in New York City. It cost a quarter and was titled Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro. The pamphlet sought to interject race into the encroaching Fall Campaign by advising the Republican Party to add a "miscegenation plank" to the platform calling on "mandatory white and Negro unions." The pamphlet, written by New York World reporter named David Goodman Croly, was cited by Democratic Congressman Samuel S. Cox in a speech blasting the Lincoln Administration social policy towards newly liberated freedmen in occupied territory. In fact, the whole thing was but a hoax that introduced racial issues into an already toxic campaign.

FUN FACT: David Goodman Croly's wife Jane Cunningham Croly was a leading female journalist and feminist who was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame in 1994. She helped her husband write the miscegenation pamphlet.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were. To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

One may also argue that the U.S. saved the Filipino from being ruled by Imperial Germany or Japan, which arguably may have been worse in the long-run.

If it had been German the Philippines would become a League of Nations mandate after WW1 and been given to either Britain (likely) or France to administer. Independence after WW2 as IRL. British rule probably less oppressive than American, French rule about the same. I doubt Britain would have accepted a Japanese conquest of the Phillippines and the Japanese wouldn't have wanted to upset their alliance with Britain prior to WW1. If the Phillipines had remained Spanish to after WW1 a Japanese attack on them would probably lead to war with US and Britain. Also the Japanese where busy in China and not ready for a war against the Western great powers in the 20s and 30s.

Such can only be determined with the benefit of hindsight though. At the time, the concern that Japan or someone else would take over was a real concern and was desired to be avoided at all costs. It is not like McKinley could have known that World War I would end the German colonial empire or that the British would have objected to Japanese conquest of the islands at the time when decisions were being made in 1899 and 1900.

Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were. To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

One may also argue that the U.S. saved the Filipino from being ruled by Imperial Germany or Japan, which arguably may have been worse in the long-run.

If it had been German the Philippines would become a League of Nations mandate after WW1 and been given to either Britain (likely) or France to administer. Independence after WW2 as IRL. British rule probably less oppressive than American, French rule about the same. I doubt Britain would have accepted a Japanese conquest of the Philippines and the Japanese wouldn't have wanted to upset their alliance with Britain prior to WW1. If the Philippines had remained Spanish to after WW1 a Japanese attack on them would probably lead to war with US and Britain. Also the Japanese where busy in China and not ready for a war against the Western great powers in the 20s and 30s.

If Germany had obtained the Philippines the most likely result would have been that it would have been split after WWI into a northern mandate awarded to Japan and a southern mandate awarded to Britain. However, I think that if the United States had not annexed the Philippines outright, we would have gone for a Cuban-style quasi-independence, complete with a perpetual lease on Subic Bay.

WTF!! 1900?! William McKinley killing browns? You're a smart guy; what kind of crack pipe are you smoking! We helped browns get their independence from white oppressors; if anything, we began affirmative action that year!

This is where views are supposed to respectfully diverge.However, I see that they haven't and that you are viewing those with different views than you as being on the crackpipe.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were. To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

If McKinley government so cared about the Philippines, they would've granted them independence instead of viciously putting down a rebellion.

So much for getting rid of evil "white oppressors".

Stability. If they had been granted independence the Spaniards could've come back in right away all over again, (or some other empire) and they wouldn't ever get their independence.

WTF!! 1900?! William McKinley killing browns? You're a smart guy; what kind of crack pipe are you smoking! We helped browns get their independence from white oppressors; if anything, we began affirmative action that year!

This is where views are supposed to respectfully diverge.However, I see that they haven't and that you are viewing those with different views than you as being on the crackpipe.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were. To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

If McKinley government so cared about the Philippines, they would've granted them independence instead of viciously putting down a rebellion.

So much for getting rid of evil "white oppressors".

Stability. If they had been granted independence the Spaniards could've come back in right away all over again, (or some other empire) and they wouldn't ever get their independence.

Which gives us the right to Empire and to police the world?

Your logic sounds very much like the people who got us into Vietnam and into Iraq.

WTF!! 1900?! William McKinley killing browns? You're a smart guy; what kind of crack pipe are you smoking! We helped browns get their independence from white oppressors; if anything, we began affirmative action that year!

This is where views are supposed to respectfully diverge.However, I see that they haven't and that you are viewing those with different views than you as being on the crackpipe.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were. To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

If McKinley government so cared about the Philippines, they would've granted them independence instead of viciously putting down a rebellion.

So much for getting rid of evil "white oppressors".

Stability. If they had been granted independence the Spaniards could've come back in right away all over again, (or some other empire) and they wouldn't ever get their independence.

Which gives us the right to Empire and to police the world?

Your logic sounds very much like the people who got us into Vietnam and into Iraq.

I'm playing devils advocate, as I can't find any neocons to do it for me. At any rate, they were our islands. We won them according to the treaty both nations signed. And the Phillipinos were very happy with Taft's governing. It may have taken us a little too long to return them, but hey, they did get their independence. Something that would never have happened if they stayed under Spanish rule, or we're swallowed up by Britain or France or Germany. In fact, I would've been a hard-core imperialist until World War II.